Translating, Interpreting and Communication Support: A Review of
Provision in Public Services in ScotlandPublic Services in
Scotland
9 780755 928934
ISBN 0-7559-2893-8 ISSN 0950 2254 ISBN 0 7559 2893 8 Price
£5.00
www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch
The text pages of this document are produced from 100% Elemental
Chlorine-Free material. The paper carries the Nordic Ecolabel for
low emissions during production, and is 100% recyclable.
Astron B44831 2/06
PROVISION IN PUBLIC SERVICES IN SCOTLAND
Isabelle A. Perez and Christine W. L. Wilson with Catherine King
and Celine Pagnier
Centre for Translation and Interpreting Studies in Scotland,
Heriot-Watt University
Scottish Executive Social Research 2006
Further copies of this report are available priced £5.00. Cheques
should be made payable to Blackwell’s Bookshop and addressed
to:
Blackwell’s Bookshop 53 South Bridge Edinburgh EH1 1YS
Telephone orders and enquiries 0131 622 8283 or 0131 622 8258
Fax orders 0131 557 8149
Email orders
[email protected]
© Crown Copyright 2006 Limited extracts from the text may be
produced provided the source is acknowledged. For more extensive
reproduction, please write to
the Chief Researcher at Office of Chief Researcher, 4th Floor West
Rear, St Andrew’s House, Edinburgh EH1 3DG
The views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and
do not necessarily represent those of the Department or
Scottish Ministers.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to express thanks to all
those who have contributed to the research: in particular the staff
of the translating, interpreting and communication support services
and within the public services who were willing to take part in
telephone and face to face interviews. The information and insights
they have been willing to share will be of benefit to the
profession and its clients as a whole. Special thanks are owed to
the research advisors to the project, Professor Elinor Kelly, Dr
Gina Netto and Professor Ian Mason. The research team would also
like to thank the members of the research advisory group and all
the project managers.
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Background 1 About the Study 1 Main Findings 1 Key Opportunities
and Recommendations 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 5 LIST OF TABLES 7 LIST OF CHARTS 9 CHAPTER
ONE INTRODUCTION 11
Background 11 Structure of the Report 11
CHAPTER TWO CONTEXT 13
Overview 13 Languages in Scotland 13 Policies and Initiatives 17
Legislation 26 Summary 28
CHAPTER THREE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH 29
Background 29 Purpose of the Research 29 Aims 29 Practical
Objectives 30 Parameters for the Research Study 30 Summary 32
CHAPTER FOUR METHODOLOGY 33
CHAPTER FIVE RESEARCH FINDINGS – PHASE ONE: STAGE ONE (TICS)
35
Overview 35 Profile of Organisation 37 Services Provided 41 TICS
Employees 49 Recruitment, Training and Qualifications 55 Summary
61
CHAPTER SIX RESEARCH FINDINGS – PHASE TWO: STAGE ONE (TICS)
63
Overview 63 Background 63 Requests from Public Service Bodies 64
Records 70 Service Providers 75 Assignments 82 Training 89
Challenges in the Public Sector 99 Summary 107
CHAPTER SEVEN PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS (TICS) 109
Overview 109 Conclusions 109 Recommendations expressed by TICS
providers 112 Summary 113
CHAPTER EIGHT RESEARCH FINDINGS – PHASE ONE: STAGE TWO (PSB)
115
Overview 115 Background 115 Service Providers 118 Requests 130
Constraints 145 Summary 151
CHAPTER NINE RESEARCH FINDINGS – PHASE TWO: STAGE TWO (PSB)
153
Overview 153 Background 153 Service Providers 155 Requests 174
Constraints 191 Quality Control/Good Practice 201 Summary 205
CHAPTER TEN PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS (PSB) 207
Overview 207 Background 207 Language 208 Justice 211 Health 216
Council Services 221 Immigration 227 Conclusions 227
Recommendations expressed by PSBs 233 Summary 234
CHAPTER ELEVEN FINAL CONCLUSIONS 235
Overview 235 Language Considerations 235 TICS Spectrum 235
Translating and Interpreting Policy for Scotland 239 Central Focus
240 Research and Development 240 Conclusion 241 Summary 242
ANNEX 1: GLOSSARY 243 ANNEX 2: DETAILED RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
251
PHASE ONE: STAGE ONE (TICS) 251 Informants 251 Procedure for
Contacting Informants 253 Collecting Data 253 PHASE ONE: STAGE TWO
(PSB) 254 Informants 254 Procedure for Contacting Informants 257
Collecting Data 258 PHASE TWO: STAGE ONE (TICS) 258 Informants 258
Procedure for Contacting Informants 259 Collecting Data 259 PHASE
TWO: STAGE TWO (PSB) 260 Informant 260 Procedure for contacting
Informants 262 Collecting Data 262
ANNEX 3: PHASE ONE – QUESTIONNAIRE: TELEPHONE INTERVIEW
(TICS) 265 ANNEX 4: PHASE TWO – IN-DEPTH FACE TO FACE INTERVIEW
(TICS) 275 ANNEX 5: IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW: ADVANCE BRIEFING OF
INFORMANT 287 ANNEX 6: PHASE ONE: QUESTIONNAIRE: TELEPHONE
INTERVIEW
(PSB) 289 ANNEX 7: PHASE TWO – IN-DEPTH FACE TO FACE INTERVIEW
(PSB) 301 ANNEX 8: POSITIONS IN ORGANISATION (PSB – PHASE 1/2) 309
ANNEX 9: REGION CODE NUMBERS 313 ANNEX 10: POSITIONS IN
ORGANISATION (PSB – PHASE 2/2) 315 REFERENCES 317
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background 1. The research was commissioned to
take forward the work of the Translating, Interpreting and
Communication Support Group established by the Scottish Executive
in 2000. The purpose of the study was to give policy-makers a
picture of the services that are currently available and indicate
what actions are needed to help develop the provision of future
services. The study’s central aim was to examine the provision of
translating, interpreting and communication support (TICS) within
the public services in Scotland. About the Study 2. The research
investigated the practice of providing TICS support to users of
spoken languages other than English and to members of the Deaf
community, including Deafblind people. It examined TICS provision
as viewed by TICS providers and by the public sector bodies (PSBs).
3. The study collected information from TICS providers across
Scotland and from TICS providers based outside Scotland if
providing a significant service in Scotland. It also collected
information from PSBs in city, urban and rural areas across
Scotland and in a range of sectors, including legal service,
health, social services, housing, employment, education, local
authority services, etc. 4. The first phase of the study carried
out an audit of TICS provision in Scotland by telephone interview,
surveying 85 TICS providers and 108 PSBs at grassroots level. The
second phase collected more detailed information by conducting face
to face interviews with 11 TICS providers and 17 PSBs at policy
level. 5. Data collection took place between February and December
2004. Main Findings Pattern of demand for TICS services 6. Although
a wide range of TICS services was available, the main focus was on
interpreting practices and provision. This was because of the more
obvious and immediate nature of the need for interpreting support.
Since limited funding from PSBs tended to be allocated to the most
pressing needs, translation or other types of communication support
might not necessarily receive the same level of assistance or
adequate provision. Awareness of needs 7. There was lack of
awareness on the part of PSBs of the needs of certain user groups.
These included people who combined several communication needs,
such as a non-English language speaker with learning needs, a
foreign sign language user, or a bilingual person who
2
had lost the ability to communicate in English, their second
acquired language, due to aging or dementia. In some settings, the
TICS needs of the immediate service-user’s wider family or
community also needed to be taken into consideration. 8. There was
currently a low take-up of translations available on request
because users did not know what was available. It was predicted
that demand for translating would grow as PSBs became more aware of
the need to provide access to translated documents and as public
service users became better informed of their right to access this
material. Service provision 9. Many participants in the research
acknowledged the lack of joined-up thinking and disparity in
service provision across Scotland. 10. PSBs suggested that there
were 4 levels of interpreting. These were face to face interpreting
provided by trained professionals, telephone interpreting,
provision by in-house staff and provision by family, friends or
members of the local community. There was still a significant
reliance on untrained provision by the last two groups and by
volunteers, especially for people with a visual impairment. 11.
There was a significant shortage of trained interpreters working in
certain languages and in specific domains or locations. Sometimes
it was difficult to match interpreters to clients as required. Data
collection 13. Collection of data was not systematic and led to
various anomalies in the reported demand for TICS. As many clients
were booking their own interpreters, the bookings for services
received from PSBs did not match the bookings actually made through
TICS providers. In addition, heavy reliance on informal provision
and subsequent lack of recording tended to disguise the actual
need. Quality Control 14. With rare exceptions, procedures for
quality control and assessment, as well as police checks, were
patchy or non-existent. PSBs tended to trust TICS providers to make
sure that these were carried out or assumed that this had been
done. Only 15% of spoken language providers, for example, carried
out a Disclosure Scotland check on their staff. Job Status 15. TICS
provision in the public sector was often associated with low status
and lack of career prospects. There were poor working conditions,
no retainers paid and little job security. Services were often
provided by volunteers or provided part-time by people with other
jobs as there seemed to be no future in this field as a
career.
3
New work methods 16. New technology, such as computer-aided
translation, telephone and video interpreting, and alternative
styles of working, such as relay interpreting, had not been
adequately researched or quality-controlled. Key Opportunities and
Recommendations 17. This summarises the recommendations for action
suggested by TICS providers and by PSBs.
Policy 18. There is a need for a language strategy for Scotland, a
coherent TICS policy and sharing of information within PSBs and
across the interface between different organisations. Information
requirements 19. Accurate and complete information on communication
needs is required to inform policies in Scotland. The full
communication spectrum needs to be considered. This covers over 100
languages, dialects, foreign sign languages and different ways of
working and presenting material in English. More systematic
collection of data regarding the demand and supply for TICs would
help inform developments and track changes. It could also help
identify trends in provision or gaps that are not being met. Good
practice 20. TICS providers and PSBs need to work together and
developments need to be informed by feedback from end-users.
Trainers and researchers must also be involved in the debate in
order to contribute essential theoretical expertise. 21.
BSL/English TICS provide examples of good practice across a wide
range of indicators, such as providers’ qualifications, quality
control, professional framework, dispersal across Scotland and
access to services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. These tighter
procedures should be adopted by all TICS providers. 22. Many
stakeholders recommend the establishment of a Scottish
certification or registration body for public service interpreters
and translators, which may be inspired by models of existing
provision, in particular BSL/English interpreting. This
professional body could manage a register, act as a central point
for information and resources, act as a repository for a bank of
translated materials and evaluate agencies. The remit could be
extended to include other aspects of communication support.
4
Training and development 23. There is a need for investment in the
training of translators and interpreters. This should cover basic
training, training in more specialised fields of work (legal,
mental health) and professional skills (e.g. chuchotage or
whispering interpreting). Trained translators and interpreters
should be re-trained to work specifically in public sector domains.
24. The profile of interpreting and translating in the public
sector needs to be raised, and the barrier between this type of
work and the higher status conference interpreting should be
reviewed. 25. Front-line PSB staff also require a range of
training. This needs to cover the TICS policies and procedures of
their own organisations and managing all communication events
requiring TICS. 26. Users of public services need to be made aware
of their right to free TICS support and the role and benefits of
using trained providers.
5
ABBREVIATIONS ACPOS ASSOCIATION OF CHIEF POLICE OFFICERS IN
SCOTLAND ASLI ASSOCIATION OF SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS BAUK
BRAILLE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM BSL BRITISH SIGN LANGUAGE
CACDP COUNCIL FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COMMUNICATION WITH DEAF PEOPLE
CODA CHILD OF DEAF ADULTS CS COMMUNICATION SUPPORT CSW
COMMUNICATION SUPPORT WORKER DDA DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT DPSI
DIPLOMA IN PUBLIC SERVICE INTERPRETING EAL ENGLISH AS ADDITIONAL
LANGUAGE EFSLI EUROPEAN FORUM OF SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS GROS
GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE FOR SCOTLAND SLIS SIGN LANGUAGE
INTERPRETING SERVICE IoL INSTITUTE OF LINGUISTS ITI INSTITUTE OF
TRANSLATING & INTERPRETING ITS INTERPRETING & TRANSLATING
SERVICE JTI JUNIOR TRAINEE INTERPRETER LD LEARNING DIFFICULTIES LSF
LANGUE DE SIGNES FRANÇAIS MEL (NHS) MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE LETTER
NASS NATIONAL ASYLUM SUPPORT SERVICE NIS NATIONAL INTERPRETING
SERVICE NRPSI NATIONAL REGISTER OF PUBLIC SERVICE INTERPRETERS NVQ
NATIONAL VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATION PS PUBLIC SECTOR PSB PUBLIC
SERVICE BODY RAD ROYAL ASSOCIATION FOR DEAF PEOPLE RAG RESEARCH
ADVISORY GROUP RNIB ROYAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND RNID
ROYAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF RRAA RACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT
ACT RSI REPETITIVE STRAIN INJURY SASLI SCOTTISH ASSOCIATION OF SIGN
LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS SCVO SCOTTISH COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY
ORGANISATIONS SL SPOKEN LANGUAGE SSE SIGN SUPPORTED ENGLISH STIC
SCOTTISH TRANSLATING INTERPRETING AND COMMUNICATION FORUM SVQ
SCOTTISH VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATION TICS TRANSLATION, INTERPRETING
& COMMUNICATION SUPPORT UKABP UNITED KINGDOM ASSOCIATION OF
BRAILLE PRODUCERS VI VISUALLY IMPAIRED COMMUNICATION SUPPORT WGIT
WORKING GROUP ON INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING
6
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.1 Start of Trading Table 5.2 Sectors to which a service was
provided Table 5.3 Provision to the health sector Table 5.4
Provision to legal fields Table 5.5 Provision to the education
sector Table 5.6 Provision to local council/council services Table
5.7 Translating and interpreting related services Table 5.8
Communication Support Table 5.9 Overview of languages offered Table
5.10 Number of requests received by TICS providers from PSBs in
2003 Table 5.11 Trends in languages requested Table 5.12
Freelancers on SL Providers’ Books Table 5.13 Freelancers (and
volunteers) on VI Providers’ Books Table 5.14 Freelancers on BSL
Providers’ Books Table 5.15 Positive responses to use of a
reference source by type of provider and main references used Table
5.16 Qualifications held by freelancers employed by SL Providers
Table 5.17 Qualifications held by freelancers employed by BSL
Providers Table 5.18 Freelancers’ membership of professional
associations reported by Providers Table 5.19 Most cited selection
criteria (SL Providers) Table 5.20 Preferred qualifications (SL
Providers) Table 5.21 Length of experience advocated (SL Providers)
Table 5.22 Most cited selection criteria (VI Providers) Table 5.23
Most cited selection criteria (BSL Providers) Table 5.24 Minimum
level of training/qualification requested by BSL providers Table
5.25 Selection methods combined and used by the different types of
TICS providers Table 6.1 Type of organisation Table 6.2 Geographic
area covered Table 6.3 Services provided Table 6.4 Breakdown of
demand outside office hours Table 6.5 Dialects and varieties of
(spoken) languages Table 6.6 Foreign sign languages, dialects and
varieties of sign language or communication support Table 6.7
Information Recorded Table 6.8 Use of records Table 6.9 Use of
records of unfulfilled requests Table 6.10 Number of linguists
Table 6.11 Communication support Table 6.12 Male and female
interpreters Table 6.13 Spoken languages for which almost all
interpreters are either male or female Table 6.14 Profile of
interpreters of one SL Provider Table 6.15 Most common areas of
work for providers Table 6.16 Types of job by type of provider
Table 6 17 Issues to be considered when “matching” interpreter
Table 6.18 Reasons why an interpreter failed to satisfy the
criteria for an assignment Table 6.19 Reasons for booking a team of
interpreters Table 6.20 Translator skills Table 6.21 Interpreter
skills Table 6.22 Training offered Table 6.23 Frequency of
monitoring Table 6.24 Opportunities for career advancement Table
6.25 Unfulfilled PSB requests Table 8.1 Type of PSB Table 8.2
Sub-types of PSB Table 8.3 No. of PSBs per region Table 8.4 Payment
for interpreting Table 8.5 In-house staff with qualifications in
languages and TICS
8
Table 8.6 Proportion of services provided by family/friends Table
8.7 Responses (proportion of services provided by family/friends
Table 8.8 Matching policy Table 8.9 Issues taken into consideration
for matching Table 8.10 Speed with which services are required
Table 8.11 Detail of speed with which services are required Table
8.12 Peaks in demand Table 8.13 Initiation of requests for TICS
Table 8.14 Services requested Table 8.15 Specific types of CS
requested Table 8.16 Detail of number of languages requested Table
8.17 Most common languages requested Table 8.18 Changes in the
languages requested Table 8.19 Strategies or aids to identify
language Table 8.20 RRAA and DDA-related policies Table 8.21 Public
awareness of the possibility of TICS provision Table 8.22
Successfully fulfilling requests for TICS services Table 8.23
Reasons for unmet TICS requests Table 9.1 Type of organisation
Table 9.2 Geographic area Table 9.3 Scope of the service cover
Table 9.4 TICS providers contacted by PSB Table 9.5 Guidance and
training Table 9.6 TICS provided by family, friends or members of
the community Table 9.7 Circumstances when “informal” TICS should
not be used Table 9.8 Qualification or training Table 9.9
Experience Table 9.10 Issues to be considered when “matching”
interpreter Table 9.11 Quantity of requests in the previous year
Table 9.12 Process of identifying need Table 9.13 Advance
information provided to interpreter Table 9.14 Impact of RRAA and
DDA Table 9.15 Duties with regard to ensure public access to
information Table 9.16 Means of informing the public about the
availability of TICS Table 9.17 Reasons for failing or finding it
difficult to fulfil a TICS request Table 9.18 Key issues causing
difficulty in sourcing interpreters Annex 2 Table 1 Types of TICS
Provider listed for survey
9
LIST OF CHARTS
Figure 5.1 SL Providers Figure 5.2 BSL Providers Figure 5.3 VI
Providers Figure 6.1 Interpreting requests: busiest month Figure
8.1 Staff providing TICS services Figure 8.2 Checks of
qualifications/training Figure 8 3 Type of TICS support most often
requested Figure 9.1 Approach used to provide TICS services to
clients Figure 9.2 Use of TICS registers or directories Figure 9.3
Use of interpreters below desirable minimum Figure 9.4 Verification
of qualifications Figure 9.5 Identifying need for interpreter
Figure 9 6 Channel for dealing with TICS Figure 9.7 Informing
clients of TICS provision Figure 9.8 Monitoring of quality of TICS
service Figure 9.9 Verification of police checks Figure 9.10 Codes
of practice
10
11
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background 1.1 This is the final report of
a study conducted by a team of researchers from the Centre for
Translation and Interpreting Studies in Scotland (CTISS) in
Languages and Intercultural Studies, School of Management and
Languages, at Heriot-Watt University, in Edinburgh. The research
was carried out in 2004. 1.2 Although the study’s primary focus is
on translating and interpreting, it is set in a wider context
informed by many strands of research and application. These include
language policy and planning, race and equality, disability,
minority ethnic communities, the Deaf community, refugees and
asylum seekers and appropriate adult schemes. Structure of the
Report 1.3 This chapter outlines the report structure. The
remainder of the report is set out as follows: Chapter Two Context
looks at the context which forms the backdrop to the study,
focusing on the languages spoken in Scotland. It discusses the
evolution of policies and initiatives in recent years and examines
central issues relating to mainstreaming, language and
communication barriers, translating and interpreting and
communication support. It concludes with a brief overview of the
legislation underpinning developments in these areas. Chapter Three
Purpose and Scope of the Research outlines the purpose and scope of
the research. It describes the background to the study, and the
purpose, aims and practical objectives of the research, and details
the parameters for the research study. These parameters are the
scope of the study, the subjects of study, the languages covered
and the location and area of service delivery. Chapter Four
Methodology gives an overview of the research methodology. Annex 2
covers this subject in greater detail, providing background
information on the informants and describing the procedures adopted
for contacting the informants and data collection methods for each
of the 4 stages of the study. Chapter Five Research Findings –
Phase One: Stage One (TICS) describes and discusses the results of
the first stage of the research. This carried out an audit of the
formal translation, interpreting and communication support (TICS)
provision available to the public services in Scotland. Telephone
interviews were conducted with TICS services. Chapter Six Research
Findings – Phase Two: Stage One (TICS) describes and discusses the
results of the third stage of the research. This investigated the
practices of TICS provision within public sector bodies in Scotland
in greater depth. Detailed information was collected from TICS
services in face-to-face interviews. Chapter Seven Preliminary
Conclusions (TICS) outlines the preliminary conclusions with
reference to TICS.
12
Chapter Eight Research Findings – Phase One: Stage Two (PSB)
describes and discusses the results of the second stage of the
research which involved the carrying out of an audit of the formal
TICS provision requested by the public services in Scotland.
Telephone interviews were conducted with public sector bodies.
Chapter Nine Research Findings – Phase Two: Stage Two (PSB)
describes and discusses the results of the fourth stage of the
research. This looked at the practice of TICS provision within
public sector bodies in Scotland in greater depth. Detailed
information was collected from public sector bodies in face to face
interviews. Chapter Ten Preliminary Conclusions (PSB) outlines the
preliminary conclusions with reference to the public sector bodies.
Chapter Eleven Final Conclusions sets out the final conclusions.
Annexes 1 – 10 provide more detailed information on the methodology
and tools used to undertake the research.
13
CHAPTER TWO CONTEXT Overview 2.1 This chapter looks at the context
which forms the backdrop to the study, focusing on the languages
spoken in Scotland. It discusses the evolution of policies and
initiatives in recent years and examines central issues relating to
mainstreaming, language and communication barriers, translating and
interpreting and communication support. It concludes with a brief
overview of the legislation underpinning developments in these
areas. Languages in Scotland 2.2 The main language in Scotland is
English. This does not mean that English is the first or preferred
language of everyone resident in the country. Some people may find
it difficult, even impossible, to access information and services
in Standard English. 2.3 As discussed by McPake and Johnstone
(2002:29-30), there is unfortunately little statistical data
available at present regarding the first or preferred languages or
dialects and the other, additional languages of Scottish residents.
There is also little information about people’s level of literacy
in any of these languages. 2.4 The 2001 census did not directly
collect any information about the languages spoken in Scotland with
the exception of Gaelic. The categories given are too broad to
indicate specific potential language use or need. This means that
an assessment of language use or communication needs in Scotland
must be based on the data collected from questions regarding
country of birth or ethnic background or any detailed information
volunteered. As a general rule, the Executive has committed to
“working to increase disaggregation of data by age, gender,
ethnicity and disability” which could “assist the development of
policies and the measurement of progress” (Scottish Executive
2002). This would depend on appropriate data relating to language
use and communication needs being made available. GROS in
consultation with the Scottish Executive has developed a new
language question (which includes Gaelic and minority languages)
that will be tested in April 2006. As with all questions on the
census test they come with the caveat that these questions may not
necessarily reflect what will appear in the 2011 Census. 2.5 Data
regarding language use may be available from other sources such as
the EAL services of local authorities. This information is
incomplete since some authorities only collect information
regarding the numbers requiring EAL support and do not cover the
range of other languages spoken. 2.6 At its most simplistic, people
in Scotland, both those who speak English and those who do not, may
identify with one of the linguistic groups described in the
following sections.
14
Users of one of Scotland’s other indigenous (heritage) spoken
languages: Gaelic or Scots 2.7 Gaelic is spoken by approximately
59,000 people, 1.16% of the total resident population of Scotland
(Census 2001). It is assumed that there are many more speakers of
Scots, but the “number of speakers has not been systematically
quantified” (Scottish Executive: 2000). Under the European Charter
for Regional or Minority Languages, the UK government has committed
itself to promoting indigenous languages such as Gaelic and Scots
in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament supports this aim. 2.8
Although most speakers of Gaelic and Scots may be bilingual in
English, many feel more comfortable expressing themselves in their
first language at stressful times. It has also been found that
people suffering from certain illnesses, such as Alzheimer’s, may
find it difficult to communicate in a language other than their
first learned language. Users of Scotland’s third indigenous
language: British Sign Language (BSL) 2.9 British Sign Language was
officially recognised as a minority language in the United Kingdom
on 18 March 2003 and is estimated to be the first or preferred
language of approximately 6,000 deaf people in Scotland. This
figure does not take account of other users of BSL such as hearing
family members or other people among the estimated 1,080,000 people
in Scotland with a range of hearing loss who may have acquired BSL
as an additional language (Figures: Scottish Council on Deafness).
2.10 There is no conventional written form of BSL. 2.11 There are,
however, regional variations within British Sign Language. Users of
community languages 2.12 Community languages are usually defined as
the languages of long-established communities in Scotland other
than the indigenous languages already mentioned. These are mainly
Bengali, Chinese (Cantonese), Italian, Polish, Punjabi and Urdu.
2.13 The 2001 Census set Scotland’s total population at 5,062,011
and provided the following figures:
• 39,970 people (0.63% of total Scottish population) stated that
they were of Pakistani and other South Asian ethnic background
(born in over 30 countries including the United Kingdom – around
11,937 in Pakistan and 1071 in Bangladesh).
• 16,310 people (0.32% of total population) stated that they were
of a Chinese ethnic
background (born in over 30 different countries including the
United Kingdom – around 3000 in China).
• 15,037 people (0.30% of total population) stated that they were
of Indian ethnic
background (born in over 30 different countries including the
United Kingdom – around 6000 in India).
15
• It is not possible to assess the number of people speaking
Italian or Polish from the available figures.
2.14 Urdu is currently the only non-European community language
which can be studied in the Scottish Education system to Standard
Grade. 2.15 People’s ability to communicate in English may vary at
different stages in their lives. Research conducted for the Joseph
Rowntree Foundation found that as people age they may find it more
difficult to manage in the English they had learned as a second
language and need an interpreter (2004:19). 2.16 It is also
important to note that the label of “community” can ignore internal
differences, particularly around language and dialect and that
language differences can also correlate to specificities of region,
religion and caste (Alexander 2004: 37). Users of languages spoken
by more recently arrived individuals or communities in Scotland
2.17 These languages are spoken by more recent immigrants, refugees
and asylum seekers. A Language Identification Card (Housing
Resources Ltd: 2000) used by Glasgow City Council, Strathclyde
Police and Greater Glasgow Primary Care NHS Trust lists 49
languages. Netto et al found in a study on minority ethnic issues
in Scotland that more than 60 languages are currently used in daily
life throughout Scotland and that in one authority, East
Renfrewshire, pupils attending schools speak more than 52 languages
(2001:39). McPake and Johnstone stated that the number of languages
spoken in Scotland is likely to be over 100 (2000:58) and, more
recently, that over 100 languages are now spoken by children in
both Edinburgh and Glasgow (McPake: 2003). These figures also
include the more traditional community languages. 2.18 No
comprehensive data have been published regarding the range of
languages and their frequency of use although Arabic and Japanese
are now sometimes described as “community languages” in Scotland.
The use of French, a language traditionally viewed as a “majority”
European language, has also increased. It is spoken by minority
communities of people from countries other than France (e.g. North
Africa and other African countries). 2.19 Anecdotally, it is known
that there are users of sign languages other than British Sign
Language in Scotland (BSL) (e.g. Turkish Sign Language), but there
are no available data. Languages used by visitors and temporary
residents in Scotland: students, tourists, business-people 2.20
These languages could be any of the world’s spoken or signed
languages (often estimated at 6,500-7,000). Even among citizens of
the European Union, more people speak German as a first language
(24%) than English and there are as many French and Italian
speakers as there are English speakers, (16% respectively).
Although English will often be the preferred second or additional
language of visitors whose first language is not English, many may
not master English beyond the level of competence required to hold
a very basic conversation.
16
Users of English with special language needs 2.21 Even among people
whose first or preferred language is English, there are special
language needs. The Moser Report estimated that one in every 5
adults in the UK is not functionally literate (1999), although the
percentage is as high as 65% for adult male prisoners. The
International Adult Literacy Study of 1997 found that 30% of adults
in Scotland may find their skills inadequate in relation to the
demands of contemporary society with its highly print-saturated
information age communication modes. Lo Bianco comments on these
findings, stressing the challenges presented by the way in which
“previously separate channels of literacy, visual, audio, gestural,
iconic combine with the textual format to produce a hybrid and very
complex kind of literate practice” (Lo Bianco, 2001: 39, 40). 2.22
People with visual or hearing impairments, while fundamentally
relying on English, may require the language to be presented or
packaged in a particular way. See paragraph 2.68. 2.23 People with
special educational needs and those whose first language is not
English may require access to information in plain English. 2.24
These special language needs do not take account of:
• the use of variations or dialects of English (or of other
languages) such as Scottish English
• the need to master “international” English in certain contexts •
the ability to produce “plain” English as a professional
skill
Identification with a language group 2.25 Many people will not
wholly or solely identify with any single group described above.
People may consider themselves to be English-language speakers, but
“have literacy issues and needs related to Scots” (Addison 2001) or
another language. 2.26 Minority ethnic groups are also not
homogeneous. “There are differences within them based on gender,
age, migration history and language spoken” (Alexander 2004: 58).
This can lead to differences in how first and preferred language(s)
are used and how well they are spoken. It can result in different
dialects. It can also contribute to differences in cultural
identity between generations within families. 2.27 Within minority
language groups, there are minorities or sub-groups including
women, young people, older people or disabled people. People from a
minority language community may also be deaf and use BSL while the
hearing members of their family speak Urdu. In addition it is
probable that deaf people, who have been born in the UK and who
have not acquired the community language of their parents, may feel
culturally excluded from that community. People may identify with
the Deaf community and use BSL, but have additional special
language-needs as they are Deafblind.
17
2.28 People are located at various points along a number of
continua. These include:
• the ability to manage in English • a level of literacy in English
• the ability to manage in another language(s) • the level of
literacy in another language(s) • general communication
skills
2.29 People will not be at a similar point along all these
continua. It is also important to note that their positions will
not remain static (Alexander 2004: 18) but may be affected by
factors such as age, education or experience, the particular
context or setting, or acquired disability. 2.30 The wide range of
types of language-competence and ability to communicate
includes:
• bi- and tri-lingual people who are fully competent, with
high-developed literacy in English and one or several other
languages
• people who are highly competent and literate in one language, but
with only spoken
competence in their other language(s)
• people who have little literacy competence in any/their single
language
• people who require their single language (English or another
language) to be presented in a particular way due to their special
needs
Policies and Initiatives 2.31 The Scotland Act 1998 gave powers to
the Scottish Parliament to encourage equal opportunities and to
ensure that Scottish public bodies respect equal opportunities
legislation in their work in devolved areas. These areas include
economic development, education, housing, justice and health, local
government and transport. 2.32 This is of particular relevance for
ethnic minority communities. The 2001 Census showed an increase in
the total minority ethnic population from 1.3% of the total
Scottish population in 1991 to 2.01% in 2001 (101,677 people). This
might be partly due to the policy of dispersal (1999) and partly
due to the efforts made to attract overseas students and workers to
Scotland following devolution. 2.33 Equal opportunities legislation
is also vital for deaf people. It is estimated that the prevalence
of age-related hearing impairment in Scotland will rise by about
20% over the next 20 years (Community Care Services for adults with
sensory impairment 2003: 3).
18
Mainstreaming 2.34 The integration of equality into all aspects of
the Scottish Executive’s work is central to its equality strategy
(Working together for Equality 2000). This approach is called
“mainstreaming” and requires policymakers and those delivering
services to make sure that an equality perspective is built into
all their work, planning and research. Such an approach was
strongly supported by the Race Equality Advisory Forum (2001: 5).
2.35 The literature review of Translating, Interpreting and
Communication Support Services across the Public Sector in Scotland
(2002:14-15) identified a shift in perspective in addressing
communication barriers from the “service provision model” to the
“social inclusion model”. The service provision model is mainly a
reactive model and involves providing specialist services, such as
interpreting and translation, to supplement established procedures.
It is viewed as expensive and difficult to obtain. The social
inclusion model builds on the view that everyone has a right to
information and support, and provision must therefore be built in
from the start. This newer model echoes the “mainstreaming”
approach, but although discussed at “national” level may not have
fully percolated down to regional and local levels. Language &
Communication Barriers 2.36 As outlined in Making Progress:
Equality Annual Report (2003) the Scottish Executive is committed
to equality, social justice and social inclusion. In its response
to the Race Equality Advisory Forum’s report, the Executive
acknowledged that it is
“essential that we widen access to services, information and
opportunities. We need to identify where there is a block to these
and how it can be put right.” (2003: Chapter 4).
2.37 The Race Equality Advisory Forum (2001) had reported on some
examples of such blocks. Key issues in the Education Action Plan
were “lack of effective communication …” (p22). In the Enterprise
and Lifelong Learning Action Plan, it was stated that “when setting
up in business, many minority ethnic businesses do not know about
the advice which is available to them free of charge, or cannot use
this because of language barriers…” (p38) and that “language is a
crucial barrier to participation in lifelong learning” (p43). In
the Health and Social Care Action Plan, the barriers in accessing
health and social care services related to communication (p47) and
“minority ethnic carers face linguistic and cultural barriers”.
2.38 Similarly, the report Creating Linguistic Access for Deaf and
Deafblind People: A Strategy for Scotland (2002) indicated that
“lack of linguistic access is resulting in inequality and social
exclusion for many Deaf and Deafblind people across many areas of
Scottish life including education, social work services, health,
law, politics and leisure”. 2.39 Language and communication
barriers are repeatedly cited in the literature as preventing
people from accessing information or services and taking advantage
of opportunities. To address these concerns, the Scottish Executive
established a British Sign Language and Linguistic Access Working
Group in January 2001. Its remit was to look at wider linguistic
access for deaf people and those affected by deafness following
the
19
convening of the Translating, Interpreting and Communication
Support Group (TICS) in September 2000. 2.40 Furthermore, in A
Partnership for a Better Scotland: Partnership Agreement (2003),
the Scottish Executive stated it would “develop a new focus for
Scotland’s languages recognising both our heritage and our
diversity” and that it would “introduce a national language
strategy to guide the development and support of Scotland’s
languages, including British Sign Language and ethnic community
languages”. The Executive also stated that it would “give local
authorities and other public bodies a responsibility to draw up a
languages plan which reflects the communities they serve”, a
measure which aimed to encourage action at local levels. 2.41
Commenting on the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, the Commission
for Racial Equality recommended that the Scottish Executive take
the opportunity to amend the draft legislation to incorporate all
the other languages used in modern Scotland. It warned that failure
to do so could lead to development of a two-tier system which would
not meet the needs of all Scotland’s people (2004). Translation
& Interpreting 2.42 The Race Equality Access Forum (2001: 12)
stated that “translation and interpreting were repeatedly raised by
members of communities as being key elements in equitable
provision, accessing and use of public services” and the Scottish
Executive acknowledged this in its response to REAF (2002) and
again in Making Progress: Equality Annual Report (2003), stating
that:
“issues around language provision and translating and interpreting
services are key to ensuring access for all. The provision of
translating and interpreting services is an important factor as it
cuts across many different areas of life, from access to services
and information through to sports and leisure pursuits and business
advice.”
2.43 The Scottish Executive commissioned a comprehensive overview
of the literature relating to translating, interpreting and
communication support across the public sector in Scotland in 2001
which reported on service provision, models of service delivery,
service user needs, training, guidelines and standards, and
monitoring and evaluation (published 2002). 2.44 In this literature
review and reports and studies relating to equality conducted over
the last few years there is a consensus regarding the vital need to
address translation and interpreting as a cross-cutting issue (for
example, Race Equality Access Forum 2001; Brien et al (2002); The
Organisation and Provision of British Sign Language/English
Interpreters in England, Scotland and Wales; Scottish Association
of Sign Language Interpreters 2002; Scottish Refugee Integration
Forum 2003; Barclay, Asylum Seekers in Scotland 2003; Investigation
of Access to Public Services in Scotland using British Sign
Language 2004, Commission for Racial Equality 2004, etc). 2.45 The
Scottish Refugee Integration Forum was established to explore
issues across 6 different areas: positive images, community
development and the media; housing; justice,
20
community safety and access to justice; children’s services; health
and social care; enterprise, lifelong learning, employment and
training. It convened a group specifically to discuss translation
and interpreting, as issues relating to these topics emerged in all
other discussions. Of the 57 key actions published (2003), 6 refer
specifically to translation and or interpreting. These were key
actions (6), (7), (8), (9), (30), (47). 2.46 In recent reports
references are made in particular to specific issues such as:
• the need to make the arrangements for access to and provision of
translation and interpreting services transparent in race equality
schemes
• differences in provision across the country • the need to ensure
staff awareness of translation and interpreting services and
to
provide guidance for staff in using interpreters • the training of
professionals in working with translation and interpreters • the
need for staff to signpost interpreting services to service users
or increase their
awareness of the availability of TICS services • the funding and
resourcing of translation and interpreting services • increasing
the availability/numbers of interpreters • improving the training
of interpreters • improving the quality of interpreting services
including the monitoring of interpreters
General recommendations 2.47 A number of recommendations emerged
from the reports. Funding 2.48 A successful funding mix to meet
needs of minority ethnic infrastructure should also “make available
more funding for language teaching and translation, networking,
interpreting and research” (Scottish Executive (2002). Review of
Funding for Minority Ethnic Groups in the Voluntary Sector: 9).
This view is supported by the Scottish Refugee Integration Forum
(2003) which recommends as key action (7) “the need to identify
whether additional resources could be made available nationally or
locally to allow individuals and community groups to obtain
interpretation services”.
21
National Body 2.49 A recommendation also made by SRIF under Key
Action (8) is that “a national certification/accreditation body for
interpreters should be established”:
• The body should “take the lead in the development and monitoring
of standards and play a part in developing a better understanding
of the professional standing of interpreters and
translators”.
• There should be “a Scottish register of interpreters and
translators”.
• A list of “stand-by” interpreters should be compiled. These are
qualified and
experienced people who work in other areas. The list should also
include employers who may be prepared to release them in emergency
situations.
• The body should “ensure that the contribution made by
interpreting and translating
work is making to the social and economic integration of refugees
is not lost and that any approach to, for example, certification is
inclusive”.
Good Practice 2.50 Guidelines drafted by the Scottish Translation,
Interpreting and Communication Forum (2002) list 16 Key Components
of Good Communication Practice for All Public Authorities which
include information relating to procurement of communication
services and health and safety issues, quality of preparation and
briefing of interpreters and disclosure. Centralised Planning 2.51
Findings agree that there is a need for centralised or top level
planning and strategy in contrast with the ad hoc approach common
in the past. This would ensure coherence, avoid endless
“reinventing of the wheel” and ensure effective progress. The
Commission for Racial Equality stated that “provision of effective
interpretation and translation services at a local level requires a
national strategy” (2004) while the Race Equality Access Forum
recommended that the General Medical Council, General Dental
Council and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
ensure their members do not discriminate on grounds of…culture or
language…by providing services which are…supported by the use of
interpreting and/or translation services where appropriate (2001:
54) even recommending that the “effective accessing of interpreting
services become important parts of the practice accreditation
scheme” for primary care services (GPs, dentists and pharmacists).
REAF further recommended the establishment of a centre of
excellence to provide expert advice to health and social care
professionals including examples of good practice around
interpreting and provision of information. 2.52 National and
centralised strategies, however, must lead to effective
implementation and progress at local levels. In 2002, McPake and
Johnstone reported that “as yet there is limited evidence that the
shift at national level has translated into local or regional
policy or practice” and, in 2004, the Commission for Racial
Equality found that “only one authority
22
(out of 45) has a fully developed action plan to improve access to
both information and services”. Improving interpreting and
translation service provision 2.53 Generally, “interpreting” is
referred to more frequently than “translation” in reports. Perhaps
because the need for interpreting may seem more immediate and
pressing as a service user is likely to be physically present and
so this need is more difficult to ignore. Perhaps too the need for
“translation” is hidden in recommendations such as the need to
“develop a communication strategy to include the provision of
appropriate information in a range of languages” (Race Equality
Access Forum 2001: 63) which could refer either to translation of
existing documents or the creation of original documents in
languages other than English. Translation should not be neglected
because the demand is more invisible. Service users themselves may
be unaware of the range of information from which they are being
excluded. Furthermore, if translated information is being provided,
service providers also “need to be sure that their target audiences
are literate in the languages they speak” (McPake and Johnstone
2002: 39). 2.54 There has been little discussion to date of the use
of relay interpreting as a provision. This technique of working
through two interpreters could help facilitate a service for people
with special language needs when no single interpreter can provide
the link between the two languages of the end-users. For
example:
• English <-> BSL/BSL <-> a particular sign dialect or
style of communication used by someone with special needs or a
mental illness
• English <-> German/German <-> German Sign Language •
English <-> French/French <-> Bamileke (a local
language in Republic of Cameroon)
2.55 Similarly there has been little discussion of the role or
experience of telephone interpreting or interpreting by video-phone
or video-conferencing system, although regular use is made of these
services in certain contexts. 2.56 There is no discussion of
machine-translation as a solution. 2.57 An area which has received
consideration is “informal interpreting”. This refers to
interpreting provided by untrained family members, friends, members
of the minority community or service providers with varying degrees
of bilingual skills. 2.58 Such informal provision is often
preferred by service providers as it is cost-effective, easy to
arrange (often arranged by the client or patient themselves) and
often avoids delays. Using informal interpreters, however, has
contributed to problems such as the devaluation of professional
interpreting skills as well as inflicting stress on the informal
interpreter, especially if a child, and even on the person relying
on the interpreting (McPake and Johnstone 2002: 33-35). Service
users are now increasingly aware of the problems of omission and
distortion of information as well as the potential bias and lack of
impartiality if an “informal interpreter” is used. Research funded
by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2004) found that minority
language community users, too, have concerns that such informal
interpreters may only have slightly greater language proficiency
than themselves, may lack knowledge of official procedures and the
jargon and terminology used by the service
23
providers. In addition, the availability of family and friends to
interpret may depend on their other commitments and there are
problems concerning embarrassment and breaches of personal privacy.
It is also the case that the minority language community user often
has a mistaken view of the informal interpreter’s ability in the
other language, as they can only make an accurate informed
judgement based on the person’s skill in the shared language, one
of the two working languages. 2.59 The view generally held and
promoted nowadays is that only professional, trained interpreters
should be employed. 2.60 The findings of the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation-funded study should also be considered. The study
explored the experience of users (in England and Wales), looking at
5 minority ethnic groups, Polish, Chinese, Gujarati Indian,
Bangladeshi and Kurdish, through semi-structured interviews
conducted in the first languages of interviewees. It found that for
most of the 50 interviewees:
“the relational status of their family and friends, their
familiarity with them as part of the continuity of their
relationship, the depth of knowledge that they had of each other,
and their family and friends’ emotional commitment and loyalty,
meant that they could trust these people to act in their best
interests in carrying out the interpretation. These qualities could
offset any concerns about their family and friends’ bilingual
competence, especially lack of knowledge of jargon, or how systems
worked, as well as any risks to confidentiality” (2004: 57).
2.61 The central issue in preferring family and friends as
interpreters seems to be the issue of trust and the question of
impartiality viewed from another perspective. Service users often
feel that professional interpreters are biased towards the service
provider. 2.62 The findings support the need for increasing service
users’ awareness of the role of professional interpreters and the
benefits of using a professional interpreter. This might include
changes in policy facilitating continuity (i.e. the same
interpreter for follow up appointments), the assignation of a
caseload of clients to an interpreter so that trust can be
established through familiarity and possibly making it easier for
service users to decline the services of a particular interpreter.
2.63 The Joseph Rowntree Foundation research indicated that it
might be appropriate to encourage basic interpreting training
opportunities for people who regularly provide an informal
interpreting service for family and friends (Alexander 2004: 64).
This could help to improve the service provided when such an
informal service is plugging a gap in provision, such as in social
settings or other settings where no formal provision is yet
provided, or in more “routine contexts” where errors have more
minor consequences (McPake and Johnstone 2002: 56). It could also
be useful when a professional is not available or when a client
chooses to bring their own interpreter even if formal professional
provision has been made. 2.64 An area which has yet to receive much
consideration is the recognition that interpreting is not necessary
just for minority group service users but is also essential to
enable professionals to do their job properly as service providers.
This is consistent with the shift from the reactive service
provision model (i.e. if the client wants it) to the social
inclusion model (i.e. support and provision to ensure equal access
to information and services
24
is made available which the client can then choose to use or not).
Theoretically, a service provider may insist on providing an
interpreter (for example, Lord Advocates’ Guidelines) even if the
service user declines this support. In this way the provider can
make sure the user has a correct understanding of medical and other
important information and that legal requirements are met.
Communication Support 2.65 Translation and interpreting properly
involve the transfer of meaning between two naturally evolved
languages. Enabling or supporting communication has a much wider
application. It may involve a range of types of activity including
working between different modes or formats of delivery of the same
language or code-switching within the language. 2.66 The report of
the Ministerial Action Group for Languages reported the wish to
“move away from “entrenched monolingualism” (Scottish Executive
2000: 2) while Lo Bianco (2001) reported that there was a growing
need to consider communication proficiency rather than language
proficiency even when information was being shared within the same
language. 2.67 In the widest sense, offering communication support
may mean providing access to information in another language. This
could be in printed form. SRIF emphasised the need for the
“availability of information in languages other than English”, for
example regarding housing (2003). Support could also be offered
through services provided in another language by bilingual
employees. Deaf people have stressed the importance of being able
to interact directly (in BSL) with social workers, psychiatrists,
care staff, etc. (SASLI 2002: 60). The Ministerial Action Group for
Languages reinforced this by stating that in taking forward
“current policies favouring respect for ethnic diversity and social
justice, it will be important to provide opportunities for
linguistic development”. Lo Bianco also deplored the fact that the
minority language skills existing in the United Kingdom were
under-exploited, and there were hardly any opportunities for
development and few career paths for bilingual workers. Types of
communication support 2.68 Offering communication support may mean
adapting the way information is presented in English (or indeed in
another language). It can include the following activities:
• Improving the communication skills of service providers to help
them adapt their style of language use to different contexts. This
support could be targeted at people using the language as a second
or acquired language or who have learning needs (e.g. writing or
speaking in “plain English”). It could also mean developing
services able to provide this function. Many translators also carry
out work in their first language as editors or rewriters of texts
for specific purposes.
• Improving awareness of and skills in cross-cultural communication
and cultural
understanding. For example, the Race Equality Access Forum (2001)
and the Asylum Seekers in Scotland report (2003) stressed the need
for service providers to be culturally sensitive. The REAF placed
particular emphasis on services for children and in health and
social care services (2001).
25
• Reviewing the format in which material is presented. This might
include:
o providing information normally available in a written format in
audio format for people with visual impairments or literacy
difficulties
o Reviewing layout, font size and text design for people with
visual impairments
o Making information available in Braille or Moon for blind and
Deafblind people
o Providing restricted frame signing or hands-on-signing for
Deafblind people (style
of presenting BSL) or manual Deafblind alphabet or other form of
communication preferred by the Deafblind person
o Making spoken information “visible” for people with hearing
impairments, but
whose first or preferred language remains the spoken language
rather than BSL (subtitles/captioning, lipspeaking, note-taking,
speech-to-text provision)
o Making spoken language available in a visual, gestural form of
English such as
Sign Supported English (SSE) or Makaton
o Transliterating pieces of information (e.g. names) between a
Roman form of script and another writing system (e.g.
Cyrillic)
o Adapting material in one register or dialect of a language into
another (e.g.
from/into the standard variety)
o Using technology to increase access (e.g. text phone,
text-messaging for deaf people and e-mail used by blind
people)
2.69 There are also human aids to communication such as Deafblind
Guide/Communicators and Communication Support Workers (CSWs). These
are part of the educational support team, but to a large extent act
as educational interpreters (BSL/English). 2.70 In Scotland, there
are also professionals whose purpose is to aid communication and
who have the expertise to assume the specialised role of
Appropriate Adult. The role of an appropriate adult is to provide
support and reassurance to any person being interviewed by the
Police as a victim, witness or accused and to ease communication
with the Police. Their role is not to act as a legal representative
or advocate. 2.71 According to the 1998 guidance on interviewing
people who are mentally disordered (Scottish Office 1998), an
appropriate adult is required:
• if a police officer suspects that a person being interviewed has
a mental disorder or if an external source (e.g. GP) or the
interviewee provides this information.
• where unusual behaviour occurs (e.g. excessive anxiety,
incoherent speech or failure
to understand and answer questions).
26
2.72 Appropriate adults are people who have an understanding of
mental disorder and are experienced and/or trained in dealing with
individuals with mental disorder. In Scotland, they cannot be
Police Officers, employees of the police force, relatives or
friends of the interviewee, nor a carer, former carer or anyone in
a longstanding professional relationship with the interviewee
(Thomson 2004). 2.73 There is no information available about
appropriate adults working in any language other than English.
Theoretically a relay situation could arise where a police officer
works in English, the interpreter works from English into another
language and the appropriate adult works in the other language.
2.74 Another professional whose role in aiding communication may be
to provide cultural information, an explanation of systems and
procedures, and advice, acting on behalf of an ethnic minority
individual or community, is an advocate or befriender. This is a
role which people often want an interpreter to assume but codes of
practice and ethics view this as inappropriate. It could, however,
be provided as a separate service, with the person acting as an
advocate working alongside the interpreter. The Scottish Refugee
Integration Forum identified the need to explore the added
contribution that advocacy services can provide and to promote the
development of these services where appropriate (2003). 2.75 There
is currently some discussion as to whether the roles of
interpreter/mediator or interpreter/advocate should be merged in
certain contexts or whether the functions should be kept distinct.
Legislation Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 2.76 The Race
Relations Act 1976 outlawed discrimination on racial grounds. Under
the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 the Executive, local
government, non-departmental bodies and agencies, and voluntary and
private sector bodies to the extent that they are discharging
public functions are legally obliged to promote race equality in
all their work. In addition to this general duty, Scottish
Ministers have used their powers to make a statutory order placing
more specific duties on certain bodies, in furtherance of the
general duty. This includes a requirement to draw up a Race
Equality Scheme showing how both the general and specific duties
will be fulfilled – public authorities must have arrangements in
place to ensure public access to the information and services they
provide. To do this, organisations “need to consider what
arrangements are put in place to meet the language needs, and be
clear how the issues of language, policy and service delivery come
together” (Commission for Racial Equality 2004).
27
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c.50) 2.77 The Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 (c.50) seeks to give disabled people equal
and enforceable rights and access. Since 1999, service providers
who provide goods, facilities or services to the public have been
required to make “reasonable adjustments” to their provision. 2.78
Under the DDA, “service providers” are most companies or
organisations that offer goods, facilities or services to the
public whether the services are free or paid for, or whether they
are provided in the public, private or voluntary sectors. Providers
of education courses are also covered by certain sections of the
DDA. 2.79 Reasonable adjustments for deaf people may include
providing a BSL interpreter to access services, providing other
forms of communication support (lipspeakers, note-takers or
speech-to-text reporters) or making printed and online information
accessible (using plain English, subtitling or signing on videos
and DVDs). 2.80 The Disability Rights Commission’s Code of Practice
states that service providers should anticipate reasonable
adjustments and plan ahead as duties are owed to disabled people
generally, not just when there is a declared need by an individual,
echoing the social inclusion model of provision. European
Convention of Human Rights 2.81 The European Convention of Human
Rights in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998, incorporated into
domestic law, initially underpinned developments in the judicial
system.
Art. 5 (Right to liberty and security) “2. Everyone who is arrested
shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of
the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.” Art.6
(Right to fair trial) “3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence
has the following minimum rights: To be informed promptly, in a
language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him…. (e) To have the free
assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the
language used in court.”
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 2.82 The Immigration and Asylum Act
1999, amended by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,
provides the legal basis for the dispersal of asylum seekers.
Although immigration and asylum are matters reserved for the
Westminster Parliament, refugees arriving in Scotland under the
dispersal policy require access to and the support of the devolved
services in Scotland.
28
• The languages spoken in Scotland
• Policies and initiatives aimed at encouraging equal opportunities
and lifting language and communication barriers
• Relevant legislation
o Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 o The Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 o European Convention of Human Rights o
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
29
CHAPTER THREE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH Background 3.1 The
research aims to provide a better understanding of current
translating, interpreting and communication support (TICS) and
develop proposals for future service provision. It takes forward
the work of the Translating, Interpreting and Communication Support
Group, established by the Scottish Executive in 2000, and the work
of the Scottish Translating, Interpreting and Communication (STIC)
Forum. 3.2 Much of the data collected by fora, by working groups
and through other consultation exercises in recent years has been
based on the knowledge of people working in the field and the
experience of users. There is little empirical or statistical data
available. A literature review of translating, interpreting and
communication support across the public sector in Scotland was
commissioned by the Scottish Executive in 2001 (McPake and
Johnstone 2002). This highlighted the need to obtain and collate
information on the demand for translating, interpreting and
communication support. More specifically, it focused on the need
for better knowledge about the differences in service provision
offered by public sector bodies and a deeper understanding of their
responses to requests for communication support. Purpose of the
Research 3.3 The purpose of this study is to provide policy makers
with a picture of the services that are currently available. It
also indicates possible ways of helping to develop the provision of
future services. Aims 3.4 The study focused on reviewing current
practice in relation to the provision of translating, interpreting
and communication support (TICS) within public services in
Scotland. This included:
• examining the practices taking place within TICS agencies and
public sector bodies in meeting demand and the strategies employed
to do this
• developing a wider understanding of the practice of providing
TICS services to
asylum seekers, members of minority ethnic communities and deaf
people
30
Practical Objectives 3.5 The study comprised two discrete
phases:
• Phase One audited the formal TICS provision available to public
sector bodies in Scotland and requested by public sector bodies in
Scotland
• Phase Two investigated the practice of TICS provision within
public sector bodies in
Scotland, collecting more detailed information both from TICS
providers and from public sector bodies
Parameters for the Research Study Scope of Study 3.6 The study
primarily investigated the practice of providing formal (i.e.
professional) translating and interpreting support to users of
community languages and deaf people in need of communication
support. The investigation was widened to include languages other
than those commonly viewed as “community” languages. See Chapter 2.
Limitations 3.7 The study concentrated on reviewing the types of
communication support commonly required by members of the Deaf
community1 and Deafblind people. See Chapter 2. It did not attempt
to cover the full range of communication support. Subjects of Study
3.8 The primary objective of the research was to study TICS
provision from the perspective of 2 of the 3 participants in the
communication triad; the public sector bodies (PSBs) and the
translating, interpreting and communication support (TICS)
providers. 3.9 The term “public sector bodies” refers to both local
authorities and other public agencies which provide services to the
public, such as health providers, housing providers and criminal
justice agencies. 3.10 TICS providers are units or agencies
providing translating, interpreting or an aspect of communication
support as a professional service (i.e. provided by salaried
employees or paid freelance or sessional workers). More specific
information regarding the profile of TICS providers is given in
Chapter 5. See Table 1, Annex 2.
1 “deaf” is used as a description from a clinical or medical
viewpoint/Deaf is used to describe people who consider themselves
members of a linguistic and cultural community
31
Limitations 3.11 The study did not directly seek the experiences
and views of members of the black and ethnic minorities or Deaf
communities regarding TICS provision. Languages 3.12 No formal
limits to the spoken/written languages and dialects2 were
considered as there was no way of precisely determining the
languages required by users of the public services in Scotland.
3.13 The study also focused on services provided for those using
British Sign Language (BSL)3 as their first or preferred language,
as well as other communication preferences such as Sign Supported
English (SSE), Irish-derived signs4, lipspeaking, and speech to
text or Palantype. As the Deaf community includes people with
visual impairments, the study also included the relevant range of
communication support such as restricted frame signing, Deafblind
Manual Alphabet, Deafblind hands-on signing, communicator guiding,
Brailling of documents, transcription into audio or other formats.
Limitations 3.14 The study did not explore the detailed
communication support needs of deafened and hard of hearing people
whose first language is likely to be English or another spoken
language, such as a community language. 3.15 It also did not take
into account the communication needs of blind people, concentrating
rather on those of Deafblind people as members of the Deaf
community. In practice, the coverage of provision for blind people
was fairly comprehensive. Location and Area of Service Delivery
3.16 The study focused on Scotland and on service provision within
the country. Significant providers located outside Scotland, such
as those supplying telephone interpreting services, have also been
included in the review. 3.17 The study took all areas of Scotland
into account. It included more remote areas such as the Highlands,
and rural and urban areas, particularly those affected by the
policy of dispersal, such as Glasgow.
2 Described as “spoken languages” hereafter 3 BSL is a natural
language rather than an artificially created communication system 4
Also described as St Vincent’s signs – see Glossary
32
Summary 3.18 Chapter Three describes the background to the research
and outlines its purpose and objectives. It gives an overview of
the parameters for the research study, covering the scope,
subjects, languages, location and area of service delivery.
33
CHAPTER FOUR METHODOLOGY Overview 4.1 This chapter gives a brief
overview of the methods used to undertake the research covered by
this report. Full details are provided in Annex 2. Background
Research Phases 4.2 The research study involved two discrete
phases, each of which was sub-divided into two stages. 4.3 Phase
One investigated TICS provision.
• Stage 1 audited TICS provision currently available to public
sector bodies • Stage 2 audited TICS provision currently requested
by public sector bodies
4.4 Phase Two collected more detailed information on the practice
of TICS provision within public sector bodies in Scotland.
• Stage 1 gathered information from TICS providers • Stage 2
gathered information from public sector bodies
Timescale 4.5 Data was collected between February and December
2004. Strategy for the Collection of Data Phase One 4.6 The survey
was conducted by means of telephone interviews. These were partly
structured and partly semi-structured to allow more flexibility in
the style of response and to ensure comparability of results
without excluding the possibility of obtaining additional
qualitative data. Phase Two 4.7 The study was conducted by means of
qualitative, in-depth, face to face semi- structured interviews in
order to access deeper layers of information.
34
Level of Study within Organisations 4.8 It was important to collect
information within public sector bodies at grassroots level and at
policy level but trying to address both these levels simultaneously
could lead to a lack of cohesion in the findings. To alleviate this
concern, Phase One: Stage Two telephone interviews (PSB)
concentrated on the collection of information at grassroots (i.e.
practitioner) level. Interviews took place with people directly
involved with the public, who might themselves have been involved
in interpreter-facilitated meetings or required to organise
translation or communication support. 4.9 Phase Two: Stage Two face
to face interviews (PSB) aimed to collect information at the level
within organisations where policy is developed. Summary 4.10
Chapter Four gives a short introduction to the methods used to
undertake the research in this report. Please refer to Annex 2 for
more details.
35
CHAPTER FIVE RESEARCH FINDINGS – PHASE ONE: STAGE ONE (TICS)
Overview 5.1 Chapter Five describes and discusses the results of
the first stage of the research. This carried out an audit of the
formal translation, interpreting and communication support (TICS)
provision available to the public services in Scotland. Telephone
interviews were conducted with TICS services. Total Number of TICS
Providers 5.2 The final number of TICS providers surveyed by
telephone interview came to 85.
• 57 Spoken Language (SL) providers • 14 Sign Language (BSL)
providers, including one Deafblind specific unit • 14 Visually
Impaired Communication Support (VI) providers, of whom 2 were
providers for those with learning difficulties 5.3 Figures 5.1, 5.2
and 5.3 illustrate the main features of the profiles of the 3 types
of provider. A provider may appear in more than one category (e.g.
based outside Scotland and telephone interpreting; sole-trader and
agency). SL Providers 5.4 The list of SL providers surveyed was
believed to be comprehensive. These included the main providers of
services to the public services in Scotland (including 6
council-based providers), based across Scotland. 5.5 The profile of
SL providers differed from other provider types in that agencies
predominated and there was only one not-for-profit organisation.
Figure 5.1 SL Providers
SL Providers
100.00%
36
BSL Providers 5.6 The list of BSL Providers to public services in
Scotland was believed to be comprehensive. These were based across
Scotland with only a single provider based in England. 5.7 The
majority of the providers (85%) were not commercially-driven. More
than half of the providers were not-for-profit organisations and
more than a quarter were council- based. Figure 5.2 BSL
Providers
BSL Providers
14.00% 28.00%
Agency Council Dept
Not for profit
Sole- trader/ self-
Rounded to nearest whole figure
VI Providers 5.8 The list of VI Providers to public services in
Scotland was believed to be comprehensive. Two providers of support
for people with learning difficulties were also included. 5.9 Over
one third of the list consisted of providers located outside
Scotland (in England), who supplied services in Scotland on a
regular basis. Figure 5.3 VI Providers
VI Providers
Agency Council Dept
37
Position of respondents within the organisation 5.10 Most
respondents were Managing Directors or senior managers in a variety
of posts in their respective agencies. A number of sole
owners/traders and freelancers were also interviewed. See Figures
5.1 – 5.3. Profile of Organisation Type of organisation 5.11 Some
68% of SL providers were independent organisations (i.e. commercial
organisations, not including charities or local authority
providers). About 31% (18) were units within larger organisations
or branches of larger companies. 5.12 Half of the BSL providers (7)
were independent organisations. Compared to SL providers, there
were more BSL providers (50%) that were units or departments within
larger organisations. 5.13 The majority of SL providers (84%) were
registered as commercial businesses or self- employed/sole traders.
Only 5 (about 8%) were public sector and only 2 (3%) were
charities. By contrast, 50% of BSL providers were charities or in
the public sector, and 78% of VI providers were charities. 5.14
This showed that SL providers tended to be more independent and
more commercially-based than the other two types of providers.
Start of Trading 5.15 Around 64% of all providers had started
trading since 1990. This matched the sharp rise in demand for TICS
in the 1990s and to date. See Table 5.1. The longer-established
organisations were mainly in the voluntary sector. Table 5.1 Start
of Trading
Pre-1980 1980s 1990s 2000s TOTAL
SL Providers 2 8 30 * 17 57
BSL Providers 0 3 7 3 13 **
VI Providers 7 *** 3 4 0 14 Notes to table * 13 of which started in
or before 1994 ** 1 missing (unknown) response *** 6 of which (or
their parent organisation) were established in the 1800s Staff size
5.16 The average number of staff employed was relatively low. In
total, 80% of TICS providers had 10 or fewer employees. A
substantial number of sole traders/owners were the
38
only members of staff in the business. Any employees tended to be
full time, in particular when the workforce was relatively small.
Geographical cover 5.17 Suppliers delivered services to 4 area
groups. These are listed in order from those with most cover to
those with least cover.
1. Edinburgh/Lothians and Glasgow, followed by - but with a
significant gap - 2. Central Scotland (i.e. Falkirk and Stirling
areas) and Grampian (including Aberdeen) 3. Perth & Tayside
(including Dundee area), Fife, Lanarkshire & Ayrshire 4.
Borders, Highlands and Islands
5.18 Geographical cover had a strongly “localised” aspect in the
case of SL and VI providers, (e.g. a number of VI agencies had been
set up in order to serve particular areas) and demand-driven aspect
(only one SL agency was domain-specialised). 5.19 On the other
hand, there was more service dispersal in the case of BSL providers
who tended to serve “Scotland as a whole” (approximately 64% i.e. 9
out of 14 respondents). Overall trends
• As main population centres, Edinburgh and Glasgow were by far the
best-served areas.
• A well-served area was often linked with the presence in that
area of local councils or
other institutions such as courts or TICS providers’ head
offices.
• A significant number of TICS providers indicated that they served
Scotland/UK/the world as a whole, depending on the location of the
head office and on whether the local level of demand was deemed
sufficient to sustain the business.
• The level of cover in Group 4 (Borders, Highlands & Islands)
was fairly low.
Contact during and outside office hours 5.20 Office hours were to
be understood as 9am to 5pm or 8am to 6pm for the majority of
providers. Means of Contact 5.21 Most TICS providers (94%) could be
contacted during office hours through all the usual communication
media i.e. telephone, fax and e-mail. 5.22 In the case of VI and
BSL providers, the corresponding proportion was 100%.
39
5.23 A handful of SL providers relied on only 1 or 2 out of the 3
media e.g. telephone and e-mail, but no fax. 5.24 Fourteen
providers (16%) overall (all 3 types) reported that contact in
person was also made. 5.25 Other media used were also mentioned, in
particular “website” by SL and VI providers (8 mentions or 9%) and
“text-phone”. The latter was particularly referred to by BSL
providers. Only 1 out of 14 (about 7%) did not use a text-phone.
Hours of Contact 5.26 No VI providers handled requests for services
outside office hours and only 52% of other TICS providers operated
an out-of-hours service. In a number of cases, this could only
happen by prior arrangement (8 mentions or 9%). 5.27 In addition,
only 42% of providers mentioned the possibility of 24/7 cover, thus
reflecting the difficulties associated with accessing a 24 hour
service. In 24/7 cover, the preferred modes of contact with on-call
staff were telephone and mobile telephone. There were also 14
mentions (16%) of e-mail. 5.28 In a few cases, respondents
indicated that Social Work Departments were expected to take over
after hours. Sectors served 5.29 Almost half (49%) of the SL
providers mainly served the private sector while 31% were geared to
serving the public sector as a priority. Some 18% of respondents
indicated that there was an equal balance between public and
private sector work within their organisations. 5.30 Predictably,
85% of VI providers and 70% of BSL providers served the public
sector. 5.31 The following tables (Tables 5.2-5.6) summarise
responses given to questions relating to the individual sectors
provided with a TICS service and indicate the frequency of service
(i.e. ten bookings or more per month).
40
Sector “Yes” Response (% of total responses)
10+ Bookings per month (% of total responses)
Health Sector 72 * 32 Legal Fields 70 * 15 Education Sector 69 * 19
Council/Council Services 66 * 30 Voluntary Sector/Charities 62 * 13
Employment Support 58 * 22 Welfare Benefits 52 * 18 Other 33 ** 11
Immigration Service 29 20 Service to one particular service 31 ***
0 Notes to table Respondents could, of course, give several
responses. * The figure of 80 to 100% of VI and/or BSL providers is
included in this total figure
** Scottish Executive, Government Agencies, Prisons, Customs,
Chambers of Commerce, Tax Office
*** 26 respondents (30% of total respondents), including 80% of the
BSL providers, indicated that the remit of their organisation was
to service a particular sector
5.32 The same information is provided below by sub-area within each
of the first four sectors. Table 5.3 Provision to the health
sector
Sub-area “Yes” Response (% of total)
10+ Bookings per month (% of total)
Hospitals 60 9 GP surgeries 41 37 Mental health & counselling
39 9 Dentists 28 4 Pharmacies 16 14 * Other 31 3 Notes to table *
Although only 16% of respondents serve Pharmacies, the frequency
rate was relatively high with 14% of the same respondents reporting
10 bookings or more per month. Table 5.4 Provision to legal
fields
Sub-area “Yes” Response (% of total) 10+ Bookings per month (% of
total)
Courts 65 9 Lawyers 62 7 Police 60 9 Procurator Fiscal Offices 42 5
Other 9 0
41
Table 5.5 Provision to the education sector
Sub-area “Yes” Response (% of total) 10+ Bookings per month (% of
total)
Local Authorities Education Depts. (schools)
58 8
Primary and secondary schools 48 7 Universities 45 3 FE colleges 42
14 * Other 14 0 Notes to table * Although only 42% of respondents
were FE colleges, the frequency rate was relatively high with 14%
of the same respondents reporting 10 bookings or more per month.
Table 5.6 Provision to local council/council services
Sub-area “Yes” Response (% of total)
10+ Bookings per month (% of total)
Social Work 60 16 Housing (+ homelessness organisations)
59 10
Other 42 11 Services Provided Translation and/or Interpreting 5.33
Overall, 73% of TICS providers offered translation services while
59% offered interpreting services. 5.34 All BSL providers were
involved in interpreting while this was the case for only 79% of SL
providers. 5.35 Just over half (54%) of SL providers offered more
translation than interpreting services; 16% reported that they only
provided translation and 28% offered more interpreting than
translation. Only 3 SL providers (5%) exclusively carried out
interpreting. Other Services 5.36 Eighteen providers (i.e. 26% of
SL providers and 20% of BSL providers) also reported offering
another service more frequently than translation and interpreting.
The activities cited included:
• language training • proof-reading • cultural awareness and
briefings
42
Services Provided by VI Providers 5.37 In the case of VI providers,
the breakdown between translation and interpreting was not
relevant, but there was a fairly balanced breakdown between “more
tapes” (5 responses/36%) and “more Braille” (6 responses/43%). 5.38
Six respondents (43%) reported providing another service more
frequently than communication support, including:
• rehabilitation • support • information services • access
consultancy • awareness training
5.39 It is worth noting that the above figures concerning the
provision of “another service” include both providers able to offer
the particular service in-house and those who outsourced the
service, but who wished to operate as “one-stop shops”. For
example, not all 22 providers listed as providing Braille were able
to organise in-house transcription and a number sub-contracted this
activity. See Tables 5.7 and 5.8. Table 5.7 Translating and
interpreting related services
Translation and interpreting related service Number of TICS
providers per service (out of total of 85)
Face to face interpreting 55 * Telephone interpreting 46
Interpreting via video or computer conferencing 22 Written
transcription of oral texts 44 Dubbing into another language 32
Subtitling into another language 18 Minute-taking into another
language 15 BSL offered as one of languages 22 * Notes to table *
Includes all (14) BSL providers. Respondents could provide several
responses. Table 5.8 Communication Support
Other communication support Number of TICS providers per service
(out of total of 85)
Note-taking in English 27 Lipspeaking 13 Deafblind manual alphabet
14 * Deafblind hands-on signing 12 Restricted frame signin